Thats about it, no pullups nothing really "new" that I can see, from the "PT review" by the CSAF:

But, in the future, if an Airman fails the AC portion of the test, and passes each of the other three components, we’ll measure that Airman using the Body Mass Index (BMI) taping guidance in DoD instructions. If the Airman meets the DoD BMI standard, they pass the PFT.

We’re making three other modifications designed to improve the program. First, we’re realigning the fitness appeal process back to Wing Commanders. Second, passing standards are being adjusted for Airmen who can only test on one component of the Fitness Assessment, and third, we’re changing and simplifying the walk test.

All these changes will be effective 1 October 2013, and the A1 will send detailed implementation guidance to the field shortly.

The second comment Chief Cody and I hear most frequently is that we need to rethink how we document fitness performance in performance reports. We are doing that as part of a larger effort to examine the performance report itself, along with the promotion system it supports. We’ll give you the results of that study in the near future.

bcoco14

08-21-2013, 04:54 AM

Fellow Airmen:

Chief Cody and I get a lot of questions about the physical fitness test (PFT). To ensure we fully understood the issues folks were concerned about, we conducted a comprehensive review of the Fitness Program. The one thing that was crystal clear to both of us when we finished is that we have a tremendous program that has fundamentally changed the AF’s overall fitness level over the past few years. So I’ll tell you right up front that the PFT itself is not going to change. But even the best program can be improved upon, so we are making changes in four different areas to enhance the overall program.

The first change involves the abdominal circumference (AC) portion of the test. We use the AC measurement to assess an Airman’s body composition, which is a key component of fitness. Because the AC measurement is integrated into our fitness test, DoD approved a permanent waiver to the DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Program, making us the only service not required to have a separate weight management program requiring annual body mass index measurements and assessments for every Airman.

One of the two concerns Chief Cody and I hear most is that there are Airmen who pass every component of the PFT except the AC, but fail the AC because they have a very large, thick body type or are very muscular. To put this in perspective, since we implemented the PFT, only 348 of ~1.3 million Airmen tested resulted in an Airman failing the AC portion and passing all the others with a passing composite score of 75 or higher. That’s 0.03%...so this is an unusual occurrence. But, in the future, if an Airman fails the AC portion of the test, and passes each of the other three components, we’ll measure that Airman using the Body Mass Index (BMI) taping guidance in DoD instructions. If the Airman meets the DoD BMI standard, they pass the PFT.

Chief Cody and I also hear about the “many” Airmen who have been kicked out of the Air Force for AC-only failures. The fact is that since we started the new Fitness Program, only 76 airmen have been separated from the Air Force for failing only the AC portion of the test multiple times. That equates to 0.006% of the Airmen tested. It’s certainly difficult for the airmen involved, but it really doesn’t happen that often.

We’re making three other modifications designed to improve the program. First, we’re realigning the fitness appeal process back to Wing Commanders. Second, passing standards are being adjusted for Airmen who can only test on one component of the Fitness Assessment, and third, we’re changing and simplifying the walk test.

All these changes will be effective 1 October 2013, and the A1 will send detailed implementation guidance to the field shortly.

The second comment Chief Cody and I hear most frequently is that we need to rethink how we document fitness performance in performance reports. We are doing that as part of a larger effort to examine the performance report itself, along with the promotion system it supports. We’ll give you the results of that study in the near future.

I believe we have DoD’s best designed, best run Fitness Program, and as a result, we have a force ready for any mission our nation asks us to execute. I’m extremely proud of how far we’ve come with our fitness culture! Thanks for your personal commitment to staying in shape!

As always, thanks for all you do! See you in the gym!

The entire email....

This actually gives people that fail the waist a reason to give a shit on the rest of the test.

CJSmith

08-21-2013, 05:51 AM

Ahh, I can't wait for the "I failed the waist measurement and BMI test....this PT program is bullshit" thread.

giggawatt

08-21-2013, 08:52 AM

You guys got it too? I thought I was on his personal distro list.

TREYSLEDGE

08-21-2013, 09:02 AM

No changes, but I was interested to learn that the WC is the reason the Air Force has a waiver to not have a weight management program. Not sure which is better/worse.

imported_StandardsAMust

08-21-2013, 12:24 PM

They just made it easier to pass.

imported_UncommonSense

08-21-2013, 12:44 PM

They just made it easier to pass.

I don't really see it that way, as far as BMI. I'm one of those guys that is usually close to going over the 39 inch measurement. I'm not going to speak for everyone, but I'm sure the vast majority of personnel who bust the AC are still going to fail the BMI. I know I certainly would. Hell, I was at 37 this last test but according to the BMI charts I'm still considered obese. For the other parts, I agree with you but don't feel that is a bad thing. Simplifying the walk test, I'm ok with that because it's the one test you really don't have much control over while performing. On the run you can keep pushing until you're about to throw up to get under a time that you know you need to get. For the walk test, you need to acheive an unknown time, while being at an unknown heart rate, while also including a known age and a known weight and subtracting one from the calculation because you're a male. You tell me I have to walk a mile in under 12:30 and now Ii know what I need to do. The "fear of the unknown" is no longer in place. As for adjusting passing standards for people only testing in one component, if the max allowable AC is 39 when testing all four components, it just makes sense that should be passing for one component.

UH1FE

08-21-2013, 12:47 PM

CMSAF I hate to tell you that we don't have a physical fitness program! We have a physical fitness testing program, that is all.

technomage1

08-21-2013, 12:55 PM

No changes, but I was interested to learn that the WC is the reason the Air Force has a waiver to not have a weight management program. Not sure which is better/worse.

According to the experts, neither of them is very good. They ranked the DoD program as a "D" because of the large variance in taping - the same thing the AF has been complaining about.

This email went to my junk folder. Wonder if Outlook is trying to tell me something...

imported_DannyJ

08-21-2013, 01:28 PM

Thats about it, no pullups nothing really "new" that I can see, from the "PT review" by the CSAF:

But, in the future, if an Airman fails the AC portion of the test, and passes each of the other three components, we’ll measure that Airman using the Body Mass Index (BMI) taping guidance in DoD instructions. If the Airman meets the DoD BMI standard, they pass the PFT.

We’re making three other modifications designed to improve the program. First, we’re realigning the fitness appeal process back to Wing Commanders. Second, passing standards are being adjusted for Airmen who can only test on one component of the Fitness Assessment, and third, we’re changing and simplifying the walk test.

All these changes will be effective 1 October 2013, and the A1 will send detailed implementation guidance to the field shortly.

The second comment Chief Cody and I hear most frequently is that we need to rethink how we document fitness performance in performance reports. We are doing that as part of a larger effort to examine the performance report itself, along with the promotion system it supports. We’ll give you the results of that study in the near future.

These answers took 7 months? Really? I expected more from our current leadership,

Class5Kayaker

08-21-2013, 02:32 PM

Before getting in to my thoughts, a little about my personal experiences with the test (so no one thinks I have a personal agenda against the waist measurement). I've never failed, have scored 100's in the past, and usually score above 90's. My biggest issue has always been with the waist measurement. Not because it was something that was going to fail me personally, but I've seen great folks who were pretty darn fit who could run in the 10's and do pretty well on P/U & S/U but fail the test because of the waist measurement. The only thing the waist has done for me is make it near impossible to score 100 even when I've run a sub 9 minute 1.5 mile and maxed P/U and S/U. I'm just not built like your traditional distance runner.

On to my thoughts:

****
I'm glad they're making some changes, but I hated that they cited their BS Statistics. The reason the numbers were so low was because those that failed the waist got ZERO points for their waist instead of still getting some points. The old chart, you got 11.7 points for a 39.5" waist (12.6 for a passing 39"), the new chart gives you a goose-egg. So, yes....of course the numbers of folks still scoring over a 75 while failing the waist was extremely low, because they only had 5 points left to give up in the remaining three categories. A Male in his 30's would have to max P/U, S/U, and run a sub 11:06 to still get over 75. A more accurate thing for them to report would have been the number of people who passed the other three components while failing the waist, not failing the waist and getting over a 75.

****

I agree with the others who mentioned the BMI thing is NOT going to help many folks at all. BMI is a terrible measurement. All it factors is height and weight. You can have a guy that's complete muscle (muscle weighs more than fat) who will be considered obese according to BMI charts, but only has 3-5% body fat. I'm willing to bet most competitive body builders are considered obese according to BMI charts. Anyone know what failing for BMI used to be?? They didn't mention it in the email.

Here's some more info debunking BMI:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070305202535.htm

From that article:

“A previous study of NFL football players found that a large percentage of them – around 60 percent – were considered obese,” he said. “But when you look at an athlete like that, you see that in many cases he is not obese. Many athletes have huge BMIs because of muscle mass, but in many cases are not fat.”

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439

****

Sounds like they're going to change the required minimum for waist only measurement folks, which is good. My guess is they'll just have to pass the minimum waist measurement instead of calculating it by points as a stand-alone test. It made no sense that someone who was on a profile preventing them from working out was required to have a waist 1.5" smaller than a guy who is able to work out.

****

Sounds like they're getting rid of the heart rate for the walk test. This was another nonsense thing. The older you got, the lower your heart rate had to be while performing the test. Completely backwards thinking!

****

Overall, glad to see they're making changes. With exception of their waist "fix", I think they're heading in the right direction. My only other recommendation would be to get rid of the minimums and zero points "cliffs," and just go back to just totalling your points. I think if they did that you'd eliminate 99% of the complaints about the waist measurement. If someone is stocky, they can just make up some points by running faster, etc.

ubermetroid

08-21-2013, 04:34 PM

So what is the "DoD BMI standard" ? I have a feeling there is a neck measurement there.

Class5Kayaker

08-21-2013, 04:47 PM

So what is the "DoD BMI standard" ? I have a feeling there is a neck measurement there.

BMI is just height/weight. Body Fat Measurement includes neck. But I can't remember what the AF standard for BMI was back when they did it if you failed the wiast measurement (back when the standard was much skinnier).

I looked for DOD BMI standards and I can't find them. There is DOD Body Fat Measurement guidance out there, but no BMI standards that I can find.

imported_oih82w8

08-21-2013, 04:50 PM

This email went to my junk folder. Wonder if Outlook is trying to tell me something...

Same here! There must be some truth to it then...being JUNK, that is.

imported_oih82w8

08-21-2013, 04:51 PM

So what is the "DoD BMI standard" ? I have a feeling there is a neck measurement there.

Bowel
Movement
Index

imported_UncommonSense

08-21-2013, 04:57 PM

BMI is just height/weight. Body Fat Measurement includes neck. But I can't remember what the AF standard for BMI was back when they did it if you failed the wiast measurement (back when the standard was much skinnier).

I looked for DOD BMI standards and I can't find them. There is DOD Body Fat Measurement guidance out there, but no BMI standards that I can find.

For some reason 25 stands out to me, but I think that was to get max points if you failed to have a 32 inch waist.

TSat75

08-21-2013, 05:05 PM

2 things - still too much variance in the waist measurement (I cross my fingers hoping I get this one tester who I know pulls the tape a little more snug than this other guy). I don't know which one is "correct" - but I do know they are about an inch apart on their measurements (and they are both trained). I have contested one before, and the next guy came in and asked "what did you get"? Then he goes to tape me and lo and behold, he tapes the same thing. I'd have rather the second person just tape me first, before asking what the other tester got. Just too much variance for such a career impending issue.

The next thing isn't just looking at people who failed the waist portion. I hate how the points are dispersed for the waist. Just like the testing on one component - if you are 39" inches or less, then you should be considered in standards. The waist should be pass/fail (if we can get the variance out of it). Get rid of the points for waist. Make it a line - you either are over 39", or 39" and under. As it is, the skinnier you are, the less in shape you have to be. If you are exempt from the run for your test, you can be skinny and do 27 pushups/39 situps (weak) - and be golden. But if you are 39" and do 27 pushups, you suck. In fact, you can be 39", do 38 pushups and 48 situps, and still suck.

At any rate, I don't care how many people failed the AC portion only. I want to know how many scores did the person exceeded the minimums, but still failed because they were 38 or 39" and didn't get squat for points?

DWWSWWD

08-21-2013, 05:44 PM

****
I'm glad they're making some changes, but I hated that they cited their BS Statistics. The reason the numbers were so low was because those that failed the waist got ZERO points for their waist instead of still getting some points. The old chart, you got 11.7 points for a 39.5" waist (12.6 for a passing 39"), the new chart gives you a goose-egg. Here's some more info debunking BMI:

Great point with the zero cliff, particularly for the waist. I was initially a fan of minimums but I've seen too many people fail by one or two, whose 7 or 8 didn't count, according to the A1C from CE or wherever the hell. Get rid of those and most of the angst would go away. Some movement in the right direction, as you said, but I think this will be the end of any more movement in the right direction. Now, let's see what they do with the EPR.

SomeRandomGuy

08-21-2013, 05:53 PM

For some reason 25 stands out to me, but I think that was to get max points if you failed to have a 32 inch waist.

If I am not mistaken you needed a BMI less than 25 to get max points. That could be wrong though. I am really skinny and this was never a problem for me. In fact on a couple of PT tests my BMI said I was underweight. I was hoping they wouldn't send me to the weight management program so I could figure out how to gain some weight.

So what is the "DoD BMI standard" ? I have a feeling there is a neck measurement there.

Here you go...ENCLOSURE 2 is the DoD BMI and ENCLOSURE 3 is BFM (the AF has an ETP to disregard both).

http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130803p.pdf

technomage1

08-21-2013, 07:19 PM

The article refers to the DoD standard for BMI, which is still taping. It's the old, old way the AF used to do it too. They tape your waist, subtract the neck, and apply that to a chart based on height. BMI of 25 or under is OK. For females they add the waist, hips and then subtract the neck. If anyone does this scrunch your neck down to get it as big as possible.

http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/130803p.pdf has the exact procedure and the charts if anyone wants to check theirs.

So you're still getting taped and the program still earns a "D" score by the experts.

imported_WILDJOKER5

08-21-2013, 07:22 PM

BMI is just height/weight. Body Fat Measurement includes neck. But I can't remember what the AF standard for BMI was back when they did it if you failed the wiast measurement (back when the standard was much skinnier).

I looked for DOD BMI standards and I can't find them. There is DOD Body Fat Measurement guidance out there, but no BMI standards that I can find.Got to love the BMI of height and weight. I am 73 inches, 230 lbs. "Obese" by that scale. But I have a 35 inch waist. SMH.

technomage1

08-21-2013, 07:25 PM

Got to love the BMI of height and weight. I am 73 inches, 230 lbs. "Obese" by that scale. But I have a 35 inch waist. SMH.

Really, the only way to get a fair test is the calipers. Tanks work really well but are impractical for mass use.

Koa1121

08-21-2013, 07:47 PM

Got to love the BMI of height and weight. I am 73 inches, 230 lbs. "Obese" by that scale. But I have a 35 inch waist. SMH.

79" tall here, and I weigh 228lbs. 35.5" waist. I'm considered overweight by a BMI calculator. I'm glad I don't have to worry about that. I came fairly close to the 37.5" max after a major knee surgery which put me out of any sort of PT for about 5 months.

SomeRandomGuy

08-21-2013, 07:47 PM

Got to love the BMI of height and weight. I am 73 inches, 230 lbs. "Obese" by that scale. But I have a 35 inch waist. SMH.

You are 6'1 and 230 with only a 35 inch waist? You must be that guy we hear about all the time who is in really good shape but he is a powerlifter so he gets cheated and can never get a 90+ on the PT test.

Class5Kayaker

08-21-2013, 07:49 PM

I "get" that most (if not all) BMI scales show under 25 is good, and 25-30 is overweight, and 30+ is obese.....question is will Big Blue set the "you Passed/Failed" at 25 or 30? If it's 30, I can see this helping some....if it's 25 I can't imagine what a person with a waist over 39 but a BMI under 25 would look like.

technomage1

08-21-2013, 08:03 PM

I "get" that most (if not all) BMI scales show under 25 is good, and 25-30 is overweight, and 30+ is obese.....question is will Big Blue set the "you Passed/Failed" at 25 or 30? If it's 30, I can see this helping some....if it's 25 I can't imagine what a person with a waist over 39 but a BMI under 25 would look like.

Picture Shaq. Or a short "fireplug" build.

Class5Kayaker

08-21-2013, 08:08 PM

Picture Shaq. Or a short "fireplug" build.

LMAO.....I was picturing a firehydrant. I think that even as tall as Shaq is, he'd sill be considered obese according to BMI calculations.

Edit: Just looked it up. 7'1", 325lbs...so 31.6 BMI which is considered obese. Oh yeah, and according to THIS (http://collectivewizdom.com/NormalWaistforaMan.html) article, back when Shaq was younger and was his most fit, he had a waist of 50"

But hey......the waist measurement and BMI are great indicators of health. [/sarcasm]

imported_WILDJOKER5

08-21-2013, 08:08 PM

You are 6'1 and 230 with only a 35 inch waist? You must be that guy we hear about all the time who is in really good shape but he is a powerlifter so he gets cheated and can never get a 90+ on the PT test.

No, I suck at running but getting better. And I dont even lift bro (lol). I just started eating "healthy" too, but that was where the inches came off. Just saying that at my body make up (genetics), its hard to get to 185 with my frame. I was 205 last year and everyone said I looked sickly.

wxjumper

08-21-2013, 09:35 PM

So nothing really changed. I'm actually fine with that. The Air Force probably fucked it up even more if they tried changing the whole program. The only thing I would have liked to see is taking away the minimums. They can have the score lower exponentially after a certain point, like they used to, but the hard bust minimums takes all the margin of error out of the process. If you hit one or two the P/U or S/U mins, or tape at 39.5, you should still be afforded the opportunity to make it up by excelling at the other components.

efmbman

08-21-2013, 11:02 PM

... we’re changing and simplifying the walk test.

I did not see that this was addressed or asked... but I have to ask: how does one simplify a walk test? Is the current standard of walking too complicated?

technomage1

08-21-2013, 11:13 PM

I did not see that this was addressed or asked... but I have to ask: how does one simplify a walk test? Is the current standard of walking too complicated?

My guess is they will remove the heart rate and simply give points based on time.

Chief_KO

08-21-2013, 11:13 PM

The old 3-mile walk test was simple, walk (no running or jogging) for 3 miles and you are timed. The new 1 mile walk test involves a heart rate monitor, time, and a complex math formula (so much for age, so much for sex, etc.) It is so complex you need a spreadsheet or calculator. In fact, with the heart rate monitor your hear rate was measured at the end, and it must be in a certain range (not too high). What folks were doing was slowing down on the back strecth to lower the heart rate, and guidance was changed so that you could not slow down. Yep, we took something as simple as walking and made it complex...
I am assuming the new test will simply use time.

imported_KnuckleDragger

08-21-2013, 11:15 PM

If the waist measurement is used to judge your health...why isn't it done at your PHA? For that matter why has no doctor EVER, mentioned my weight, at a PHA/physical? Smokers are intentionally harming their fitness, why aren't they booted, after not quitting?

efmbman

08-21-2013, 11:54 PM

The old 3-mile walk test was simple, walk (no running or jogging) for 3 miles and you are timed. The new 1 mile walk test involves a heart rate monitor, time, and a complex math formula (so much for age, so much for sex, etc.) It is so complex you need a spreadsheet or calculator. In fact, with the heart rate monitor your hear rate was measured at the end, and it must be in a certain range (not too high). What folks were doing was slowing down on the back strecth to lower the heart rate, and guidance was changed so that you could not slow down. Yep, we took something as simple as walking and made it complex...
I am assuming the new test will simply use time.

Thanks - I honestly had no idea so much was involved. Now I understand.

Capt Alfredo

08-22-2013, 01:43 AM

What's even worse, when you read the DoD standard for measuring BMI, is that they say to measure the male at the navel. There is no allowance for different skeletal compositions, i.e. where a person's hipbones are. In this case, they may well be measuring over bone, which is patently unfair. However, for females, the instruction says to measure at the *skinniest* point between hips and breastbone. A a girl with a ba-donka-donk ass is going to get seriously punished because the instructions say to measure at the boomingest part of the booty. Doh!

BigBaze

08-22-2013, 01:47 AM

Did the walk test once after a knee procedure, you basically have to walk really fast, and your feet cannot lift off the ground. It is 1 mile, so you are trying to walk fast while keeping your heart rate down. I had one that would malfunction throughout the test, blinking between 135 and 160 so it was kinda funny. And yes the test people will be around the track telling you to keep walking, if you slow down they will pull you off the track and fail you.

Mastercone

08-22-2013, 02:28 AM

So what is the "DoD BMI standard" ? I have a feeling there is a neck measurement there.

I found an extensive file online titled "Air Force Guidance Memorandum for AFI 36-2905, Fitness Program" and dated 02 AUG 2013 which lists all sorts of crap. This sounds more like spring training for the Olympics.

Chief Cody and I get a lot of questions about the physical fitness test (PFT). To ensure we fully understood the issues folks were concerned about, we conducted a comprehensive review of the Fitness Program. The one thing that was crystal clear to both of us when we finished is that we have a tremendous program that has fundamentally changed the AF’s overall fitness level over the past few years. So I’ll tell you right up front that the PFT itself is not going to change. But even the best program can be improved upon, so we are making changes in four different areas to enhance the overall program.

The first change involves the abdominal circumference (AC) portion of the test. We use the AC measurement to assess an Airman’s body composition, which is a key component of fitness. Because the AC measurement is integrated into our fitness test, DoD approved a permanent waiver to the DoD Physical Fitness and Body Fat Program, making us the only service not required to have a separate weight management program requiring annual body mass index measurements and assessments for every Airman.

One of the two concerns Chief Cody and I hear most is that there are Airmen who pass every component of the PFT except the AC, but fail the AC because they have a very large, thick body type or are very muscular. To put this in perspective, since we implemented the PFT, only 348 of ~1.3 million Airmen tested resulted in an Airman failing the AC portion and passing all the others with a passing composite score of 75 or higher. That’s 0.03%...so this is an unusual occurrence. But, in the future, if an Airman fails the AC portion of the test, and passes each of the other three components, we’ll measure that Airman using the Body Mass Index (BMI) taping guidance in DoD instructions. If the Airman meets the DoD BMI standard, they pass the PFT.

Chief Cody and I also hear about the “many” Airmen who have been kicked out of the Air Force for AC-only failures. The fact is that since we started the new Fitness Program, only 76 airmen have been separated from the Air Force for failing only the AC portion of the test multiple times. That equates to 0.006% of the Airmen tested. It’s certainly difficult for the airmen involved, but it really doesn’t happen that often.

We’re making three other modifications designed to improve the program. First, we’re realigning the fitness appeal process back to Wing Commanders. Second, passing standards are being adjusted for Airmen who can only test on one component of the Fitness Assessment, and third, we’re changing and simplifying the walk test.

All these changes will be effective 1 October 2013, and the A1 will send detailed implementation guidance to the field shortly.

The second comment Chief Cody and I hear most frequently is that we need to rethink how we document fitness performance in performance reports. We are doing that as part of a larger effort to examine the performance report itself, along with the promotion system it supports. We’ll give you the results of that study in the near future.

I believe we have DoD’s best designed, best run Fitness Program, and as a result, we have a force ready for any mission our nation asks us to execute. I’m extremely proud of how far we’ve come with our fitness culture! Thanks for your personal commitment to staying in shape!

As always, thanks for all you do! See you in the gym!

So, We measure the people that have failed waist only against the TOTAL number of tests given? Individuals against multiple testers... This does't smell right to me. The total number of people inthe AF is 349,489 (see link below). So doing that math: 348 failed "AC only" divided by total AD AF 329,489 x 100 = .105%. One tenth of a percent of your force failing the AC measurment but "passing" the overall test. Additionally, 76 got the boot for this out of your total AD AF = .02%. Those are the real numbers the AF doesn't want to talk about. Both more than three times the slanted stats the AF is trying to feed it's people. This is some of the worst, most transparent propganda I've ever seen. Ridiculous...

http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforcepersonneldemographics.asp

Also, while you're on the site check out how there are only 329,489 people on Active Duty but 432,834 of them support family members...

imported_StandardsAMust

08-22-2013, 08:05 AM

Look...the CSAF and the CMSAF are getting this wrong. They have good intentions, but are clearly getting bad data. This just got complicated for unit leadership to deal with.

First, AFFMS will need to be upgraded to score this complicated mess. I can see the formula now...member fails A/C but passes other components...now, insert some type of BMI calculation. What will the final score be? It took two years for the system to get upgraded from the change in 2010...lots of scores were manually tracked because of it.

Second, 99.9% of those that fail the A/C measurement are just plain fat and lazy. Period. All they have done is make it easier to pass via the profile system. Now, you can have a 39" waist and pass. That is way up from 35" years ago. Instead of "See you at the gym," Gen Welsh really meant "See you at the clinic."

Third, the walk test is absolutely horrible. It was horrible for the three mile walk, took 45 mins to complete, and it was horrible as a one mile walk using the most complicated formula known to humankind. What purpose does the walk test prove? People automatically think that they should always pass the walk test. When they fail it, every possible excuse is introduced. Just get rid of it. Period.

Fourth, profiles are the biggest issue with our Fitness test. The facts are people don't want to take PT test. Profiles are their way out of it. I am on a profile that expires in a few weeks. Nothing is wrong with me, but I know how easy they are to get. The profile system is messed up. A serious review needs to be done on this.

Fifth, now that fitness program just got jacked, I do not expect any serious good to come from the EPR and WAPS review under this current leadership team. Good intentions, yes, execution, not yet.

Nickymaz

08-22-2013, 12:47 PM

Look...the CSAF and the CMSAF are getting this wrong. They have good intentions, but are clearly getting bad data. This just got complicated for unit leadership to deal with.

First, AFFMS will need to be upgraded to score this complicated mess. I can see the formula now...member fails A/C but passes other components...now, insert some type of BMI calculation. What will the final score be? It took two years for the system to get upgraded from the change in 2010...lots of scores were manually tracked because of it.

Second, 99.9% of those that fail the A/C measurement are just plain fat and lazy. Period. All they have done is make it easier to pass via the profile system. Now, you can have a 39" waist and pass. That is way up from 35" years ago. Instead of "See you at the gym," Gen Welsh really meant "See you at the clinic."

Third, the walk test is absolutely horrible. It was horrible for the three mile walk, took 45 mins to complete, and it was horrible as a one mile walk using the most complicated formula known to humankind. What purpose does the walk test prove? People automatically think that they should always pass the walk test. When they fail it, every possible excuse is introduced. Just get rid of it. Period.

Fourth, profiles are the biggest issue with our Fitness test. The facts are people don't want to take PT test. Profiles are their way out of it. I am on a profile that expires in a few weeks. Nothing is wrong with me, but I know how easy they are to get. The profile system is messed up. A serious review needs to be done on this.

Fifth, now that fitness program just got jacked, I do not expect any serious good to come from the EPR and WAPS review under this current leadership team. Good intentions, yes, execution, not yet.

Really? Profiles are the biggest issue? A couple of facts. Folks on a profile, even if they are exempt from the run/walk, pushups and situps must still pass the waist measurement. No one, unless you're having some kind of abdominal surgery, is going to get an exception from the A/C. Profiles are reviewed by the clinic and should be reviewed by commanders, and those on long-term profiles can be reviewed by the Deployment Availability Working Group (DAWG), look up AFI 10-203 for more info.

I agree that the walk test with its massive computations needs to be simplified to a timed walk.

technomage1

08-22-2013, 01:28 PM

Really? Profiles are the biggest issue? A couple of facts. Folks on a profile, even if they are exempt from the run/walk, pushups and situps must still pass the waist measurement. No one, unless you're having some kind of abdominal surgery, is going to get an exception from the A/C. Profiles are reviewed by the clinic and should be reviewed by commanders, and those on long-term profiles can be reviewed by the Deployment Availability Working Group (DAWG), look up AFI 10-203 for more info.

I agree that the walk test with its massive computations needs to be simplified to a timed walk.

Profiles, at least at my base, are hard to get. I goofed up my shoulder and saw the doc for pain meds. Once I explained I did not need a profile since my test was good until next year, that was when I was taken seriously in terms of pain and the injury and meaningful treatment began.

sandsjames

08-22-2013, 01:49 PM

Profiles, at least at my base, are hard to get. I goofed up my shoulder and saw the doc for pain meds. Once I explained I did not need a profile since my test was good until next year, that was when I was taken seriously in terms of pain and the injury and meaningful treatment began.

My last two years in (before I retired!!!!!) every time I'd see a doctor about pain, the second question (first was "do you smoke?") was "When is your next PT test"? They were looking hard for people trying to get out of a component.

Class5Kayaker

08-22-2013, 02:13 PM

Really? Profiles are the biggest issue? A couple of facts. Folks on a profile, even if they are exempt from the run/walk, pushups and situps must still pass the waist measurement. No one, unless you're having some kind of abdominal surgery, is going to get an exception from the A/C. Profiles are reviewed by the clinic and should be reviewed by commanders, and those on long-term profiles can be reviewed by the Deployment Availability Working Group (DAWG), look up AFI 10-203 for more info.

I agree that the walk test with its massive computations needs to be simplified to a timed walk.

Profiles are StandardsAMust's pet peeve. Just look at his history of posts.

BMHenson

08-22-2013, 02:32 PM

Now that the American Medical Association/Congress has officially classified/recognized obesity as a disease, its only a matter of time before people claim they have a "service related illness(obesity)" and demand a full PT exemption from their PCM. If we use the DoD BMI standard of 30%> is obese, how can we legally seperate/punish someone who has a disease and claims the failed PT test is due to said disease? How will this effect the pre-test health questionaire? Should there be a block for: "If you think you are obese, circle yes, do not continue and schedule an appointment with your PCM."

I hope our HQ AF/SG is looking at this as it could be an enormous loop hole in our fitness/physical appearance standards.

Pullinteeth

08-22-2013, 02:44 PM

What's even worse, when you read the DoD standard for measuring BMI, is that they say to measure the male at the navel. There is no allowance for different skeletal compositions, i.e. where a person's hipbones are. In this case, they may well be measuring over bone, which is patently unfair. However, for females, the instruction says to measure at the *skinniest* point between hips and breastbone. A a girl with a ba-donka-donk ass is going to get seriously punished because the instructions say to measure at the boomingest part of the booty. Doh!

WRONG.....you are confusing BMI and BFM. BMI is simply ht/wt.

Here you go...ENCLOSURE 2 is the DoD BMI and ENCLOSURE 3 is BFM (the AF has an ETP to disregard both).

Thing is...there is no "BMI Taping Guidance" in the DOD Instructions, only Body Fat taping guidance.

Someone in the medical community should have proof-read his memo before he sent it out to over 500,000 people (I'm assuming guard/reserve members get his emails as well).

I figure it'll all be explained here in the near future when the actual written guidance comes out.

Capt Alfredo

08-22-2013, 03:17 PM

Thing is...there is no "BMI Taping Guidance" in the DOD Instructions, only Body Fat taping guidance.

Someone in the medical community should have proof-read his memo before he sent it out to over 500,000 people (I'm assuming guard/reserve members get his emails as well).

I figure it'll all be explained here in the near future when the actual written guidance comes out.

Right, I'm using my powers of insight to attempt to discern the general's intended meaning by decoding his imprecise message and extrapolating. Bob Dorr, where are you when we need you?

fufu

08-22-2013, 03:38 PM

Another fail by AF leadership...

Want to keep the waist measurement? Fine. Just don't assign points to it. 39.5 or less, gtg. 40 or higher go to the HAWC for diet counseling and taping until you are less than 39.5.

PT test the same, pass or fail regardless of waist size.

Why is that so hard?

imported_StandardsAMust

08-22-2013, 07:21 PM

Profiles are StandardsAMust's pet peeve. Just look at his history of posts.

You are correct. They are. Too many on them to avoid the test. AF stats show 15 to 20 percent tested with exemptions on their last test with the majority exempt from the cardio component.

Class5Kayaker

08-22-2013, 07:24 PM

You are correct. They are. Too many on them to avoid the test. AF stats show 15 to 20 percent tested with exemptions on their last test with the majority exempt from the cardio component.

I completely agree with you on the fact that there are too many bogus profiles out there, I was just pointing out that it's one of your pet peeves that you seem to post about a lot. I'm not sure what the "fix" is since it's on the medical community and most docs seem too afraid to call BS on people complaining about supposed ailments in order to get on profiles. Not sure if they're worried about denying a profile and then having someone seriously injured or what. I just try to not get wrapped around the axle on the issue since I don't see it ever being resolved.

I completely agree with you on the fact that there are too many bogus profiles out there, I was just pointing out that it's one of your pet peeves that you seem to post about a lot. I'm not sure what the "fix" is since it's on the medical community and most docs seem too afraid to call BS on people complaining about supposed ailments in order to get on profiles. Not sure if they're worried about denying a profile and then having someone seriously injured or what. I just try to not get wrapped around the axle on the issue since I don't see it ever being resolved.

I'm not sure I agree. I have several broke SNCOs working for me. One got OFF his profile to test (passed) then immediately got back on one, one tested without getting on a profile for a known medical condition and failed (before I got here), and another wanted to test broken instead of getting on a profile-I convinced him that was a BAD idea.

technomage1

08-22-2013, 07:31 PM

You are correct. They are. Too many on them to avoid the test. AF stats show 15 to 20 percent tested with exemptions on their last test with the majority exempt from the cardio component.

However - not everyone on profile is dodging the test. I've never tested on profile, but I have been on profile for legitimate injuries. It was only luck I was hurt when I was that I could avoid the profile test. What I don't want to see is the people with legitimate medical issues get punished for the slackers.

imported_StandardsAMust

08-22-2013, 07:41 PM

However - not everyone on profile is dodging the test. I've never tested on profile, but I have been on profile for legitimate injuries. It was only luck I was hurt when I was that I could avoid the profile test. What I don't want to see is the people with legitimate medical issues get punished for the slackers.

The problem I see is the habitual profiles. Those that are always on them. I'm not concerned about once or twice. I saw a fitness rip last week. CMSgt promotee that has been exempt from PT since 2008. This person has only done the waist measurement for the past 5 years. 35 to 37 inch waist everytime. No pushups or situps. Not even the walk test. How does this happen?

I should scan and send AFT some fitness reports that would expose the dark side of PT test avoidance. I have scoresheets that would shock the forum, but if I posted them and ever got exposed, I would risk my career. Not willing to do that...at least not yet.

Class5Kayaker

08-22-2013, 08:08 PM

I'm not sure I agree. I have several broke SNCOs working for me. One got OFF his profile to test (passed) then immediately got back on one, one tested without getting on a profile for a known medical condition and failed (before I got here), and another wanted to test broken instead of getting on a profile-I convinced him that was a BAD idea.

I wasn't saying there aren't legitimate folks out there with profiles, there most certainly are. It's just that we have all seen/known the person who plays the profile game, and this only makes things harder for the folks who have legitimate profiles because of the stigma associated with them due to so many people playing the game.

imported_StandardsAMust

08-22-2013, 08:26 PM

I wasn't saying there aren't legitimate folks out there with profiles, there most certainly are. It's just that we have all seen/known the person who plays the profile game, and this only makes things harder for the folks who have legitimate profiles because of the stigma associated with them due to so many people playing the game.

The new special duty process is taking shape and we got our first quota today. Out of all the eligibles, only less than 20 percent qualified to be selected for possible special duty. 30 percent of total eligibles were disqualified by PT Alone. 85 percent were because of exemptions.

It seems like those that are being selected are being punished for completing their CCAF, having great performance reports, and scoring high on PT test. I've already heard some say they should score lower than 80 on their next test to get off the list.

The AF has this backward. Make those on profile eligible for this mandatory special duty process and only select those who score less than 90 and watch what would happen.

cloudFFVII

08-23-2013, 12:02 AM

Back when it was the 3 mile walk, I thought that was too long (I think to score the max points you had to walk that in like 27 or 28 minutes, almost a running time!).

When they phased in the new walk test w/HR, I literally stopped taking one of my medications because to lose that part of the test would have meant almost certain failure (and it took 30 minutes of talking with my cardiologist for them to finally relent). The only thing I knew I could control on the walk test was my time, on my final one I got down to 10:57 w/about a 130 HR, that got me 58/60. I came off my profile in February (my heart was given a clean bill of health) and passed my first all-component PT test last month.

My thinking is one of two things on the walk test:
- Leave it at 1 mile, eliminate the HR
- Move it up to 2 miles, no HR

I think 2 miles is a sufficient enough distance that, given the right charts, a member can work on building the speed that they can and still be successful. But I also know that's not possible for a lot of people who have foot and knee issues, especially.

As for the A/C, yeah I didn't see them eliminating that. Time will tell if the "pass 3 but the A/C, have the BMI administered" will really make that big a difference. It still leaves a system in place where the tension that the measurer puts on the tape, or measuring in the wrong place, will pass/fail people, or make the difference between Excellent/Satisfactory. If you're going to keep allowing people to chain smoke and/or drink every night, and that's OK as long as they pass their PT test, I fail to see where keeping a measurement around an abdomen is going to really lead to better preventative health.

Not surprised on the special duty front, it's even worse on the PME side of things, however I believe EPME Next is going to fix the majority of that issue (i.e. online PME, hence profiles are a non-issue for completion).

imported_KnuckleDragger

08-23-2013, 12:17 AM

In theory,

If you have two people of the same height, one of the desired USAF weight/AC and the other overweight/high AC... they both score the same numbers in the other testable categories(P/U, Crunches, Run). Isn't the overweight individual in better physical condition, because he achieved the same results, pushing that much more weight around?

jpeters

08-23-2013, 04:20 AM

The new special duty process is taking shape and we got our first quota today. Out of all the eligibles, only less than 20 percent qualified to be selected for possible special duty. 30 percent of total eligibles were disqualified by PT Alone. 85 percent were because of exemptions.

It seems like those that are being selected are being punished for completing their CCAF, having great performance reports, and scoring high on PT test. I've already heard some say they should score lower than 80 on their next test to get off the list.

The AF has this backward. Make those on profile eligible for this mandatory special duty process and only select those who score less than 90 and watch what would happen.

Yep took my PT test on Tuesday and made sure I scored a 79 so my name wouldn't end up on the MTI or any other special duty list.

Jumper5

08-23-2013, 04:48 AM

Yep took my PT test on Tuesday and made sure I scored a 79 so my name wouldn't end up on the MTI or any other special duty list.

Leading by example...

imported_StandardsAMust

08-23-2013, 10:58 AM

Leading by example...

Don't hate the player...hate the game.

imnohero

08-23-2013, 01:10 PM

Don't hate the player...hate the game.

:)

jpeters

08-23-2013, 01:50 PM

Leading by example...

Some people are cut out for those special duties...I am not one of those people. So before I am put in a situation that I know I will not be good for the AF or myself, I took steps to make sure that I don't take the spot of someone that wants to do one of those duties and would be better at it then I would be.

Class5Kayaker

08-23-2013, 02:47 PM

My thinking is one of two things on the walk test:
- Leave it at 1 mile, eliminate the HR
- Move it up to 2 miles, no HR

Huh??? Both say no heart rate, just different distances. Is that what you meant to say?

Pullinteeth

08-23-2013, 02:52 PM

If they get rid of the heart rate portion of the PFT Walk Test, should those people who failed only based on heart rate and subsequently lost a stripe or discharged from the AF be allowed to get that stripe back and or rejoin the AF? Think long and hard about other "rules" that were over turned that allowed previously discharged members to return before answering.

Like what? If you are "thinking" about DADT, you might want to do a bit more research because it isn't like they came back in droves or that the process was any easier for them than it was for any other Prior Service applicant.

wxjumper

08-23-2013, 03:01 PM

Wow, a lot of concern over the walk test. I guess more people take that then I thought.

Chief_KO

08-23-2013, 10:42 PM

If memory serves when the altitude adjustment came back it was specific that is was not backdated, meaning if anyone could retroactively add the correction to their run score and get a stripe back they couldn't do so.

Chief_KO

08-24-2013, 03:58 AM

@KO, that doesn't make it right.
That's my point. The AF is already on record that when an error is made (how can altitude be a factor, then not a factor, then a factor again) that anyone caught in the middle will not get retribution.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" George Santayana

Mr. Happy

08-24-2013, 04:06 AM

Once we all retire or get out, we can be fat as we all want. I can't wait.

Chief_KO

08-24-2013, 04:15 AM

Once we all retire or get out, we can be fat as we all want. I can't wait.

Better check the news to see what some private industry is starting to do related to healthcare premiums for their employees. Probably in everyone's best interest to stay in pretty decent shape, for both health and financial reasons.

sharkhunter

08-24-2013, 11:43 PM

My former Wing CC told my NCO PES group that an x-ray technician from the hospital knows exactly where to locate everyone's hip bone in an instant (they do it everyday for their job). Why doesn't the AF start using them for the tape measurements?

BOSS302

08-25-2013, 12:40 AM

My former Wing CC told my NCO PES group that an x-ray technician from the hospital knows exactly where to locate everyone's hip bone in an instant (they do it everyday for their job). Why doesn't the AF start using them for the tape measurements?

Yes. Let's pull X-ray technicians from their primary AFSC and have them play "finding the hip bone" at the HAWC all day. Wonderful idea. :31:

A lot of Airmen( with a capital to include nco's, snco's, and cgo's) have to understand that you cant be fat and present a military image. there is a difference between fat and stalky as well. when you think about most of the individuals that fail their pft, its the people that barely get thru it, to include the stick figures and the chunky's. Profiles have essentially ruined the S/NCO corp, and you know people just as well as i know people that have gone to the dr a week or 2 before their test and made up something dumb like their back or their knees hurt. Fitness is part of the job description and while people arent expected to look like super models or pro athletes, they are expected to maintain a professional appearance. If you dont want to stay in decent shape and eat smart(not 'healthy' but not eating mcd's all the time and whole pizza's in a sitting) then they deserve to get the boot. the standard isnt impossible to meet. there are some changes that should be re eval'd but the overall goal is very doable.

JLaw

To the people that say "But I do my job so wonderfully... why get rid of me?" If you're too lazy to move your body enough to pass the most ridiculously easy PT test I've ever seen.. I'm not so sure you're telling the truth about doing a wonderful job. The amount of people that aren't capable of passing the PT test is mind-blowing. Yes, the waist tape and BMI measurements are unfair... but it seems like the ones complaining of these issues are the people that can't pass the other components anyway, or are on the verge of failing them.

Kristin

We should not be failing in any area of fitness, no matter what job you do or
how well you do it. I agree that the AC measurement is a joke, as well as the
BMI measurement. We just need reasonable standards that will still promote a
professional image. As a UFPM, I see too many people in the military (both
active and guard/reserve) that have no excuse to be the size that they are. It
disappoints me because it doesn't look professional. Most of them look
unhealthy... usually because most of them are. That's because for too long
there were no repercussions for failing, or people found ways to be put on
waivers for years and years. I'm sorry, I don't care if they are "magical" at
what they do, you joined a profession that has standards... you should meet the
standards. I just hope they come up with better standards.

Jay S

Sounds like a lot of disgruntled children on this comments section looking to vent anger that isn't necessary. Look at the actual statistics of people who pass all but the AC who get kicked out. It's so small, you'd be lucky to know a single airman who fits the category. 0.03% of the AF. Any excuse to keep a hefty body though, huh? It's about looking professional in your uniform.
Force reduction isn't happening because of the PT program. I'm also glad that they are taking into account BMI index, so that there's NO MORE EXCUSES that these fattys are just too buff.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have the utmost respect for our current leaders and have had the opportunity to meet with and talk to Gen Welsh. Hands down, he is by far, the most personable man you will ever meet. So, I tried to rationalize how he came to the decision he has regarding the fitness test...I believe it went down something similar to this:

CMSAF: Sir, everywhere I travel I get complaints about our PT test. We need to fix this program.

CSAF: Son, I agree. Are you looking at me? You know I'm big boned, heck, I joke about it everywhere I go, but now that I'm at the top, I need to look the part. I have a plan on shedding some more weight, it's the right thing to do. But, we both know, this program only applies to our enlisted force...heck, have you seen my 4-star best friend over in USAFE? He's big boned too, but one heck of an officer and leader. We need more like him.

CMSAF: Sir, I don't understand. I work out and pass my test, we need to enforce the standards...this isn't a jobs program. People see us at the top, to include your friend over in USAFE.

CSAF: I know what you are saying and you are correct. That's why I hired you. I need honest feedback and you speak on the enlisted forces behalf. You are fit, trim, and present the proper image I need in a CMSAF. I value your service. While in USAFE, we all know how my friend got the looks and stares, but he's got years of experience. That waist measurement is not his friend. That's why I moved him to NATO and encouraged him to find a Chief that looks the part. We accomplished that goal.

CMSAF: Sir, I don't understand. That solves nothing.

CSAF: Yes it does. When folks gripe to you and gripe to his Chief or others in similar positions, you and him and others will think twice about approaching those in our position. His Chief may not talk PT to him like you will to me. That's not on my friend's radar. Heck, I could care less if he passes or fails the test...that's why I think I should look at the waist measurement thing and let it get bigger, but my hands are tied to the exemption we have from DoD. My 4-star NATO friend is 5% body fat so my best option is to find a way for folks like him to pass this test. It's the right thing to do. If he can't make tape, then he'll beat the Body Fat measurement. That's how we win wars...that's how we achieve GV, GR, GP. I need you to lead from the front, walk the walk, and stand behind this effort. Every Airman has a story, has a role, volunteered to serve, and I owe it to all who serve to let them know that. Our Airmen are the foundation to our success and this PT thing is a distraction and we must fix it. Relaxing the standards is one way to do that. The force is smart enough to find a better way to conduct this fitness business. They always have, and I know they always will. Remember, the core missions of our great AF haven't changed since 1947 and neither should our fitness requirements.

CMSAF: What do you recommend?

CSAF: First, I want to put this back in the commanders hands, like I did for Blues Monday, then, I want to simplify that damn walk test. NASA can't figure out that formula, then I want you to find a way to get it removed from the evaluation process...we owe that to our folks and it's the right thing to do. I want it to be effective by Oct 1st! This is a time you should be proud to serve in this great Air Force.

CMSAF: I don’t have confidence that our fitness database scoring system can be updated by that deadline and you know our track record for updating AFI’s on time…it’s not good and I think removing this from the performance report could lead to more inflated reports!

CSAF: Chief, our Airmen are the most technologically advanced members serving in the world today. I have complete confidence that this will not get screwed up. You need to have faith in them, and then they will have faith in us. I’ve already been informed by our fitness database engineer team that they can get this right and have all of my changes ready to roll by Oct 1st. The BMI, simpler walk test, and profile testing score conversions will be a breeze for them to solve. I trust they will. The field will have no issues. As far as inflated reports go, I need you to lead that effort. Find out what you can and get back to me. I owe another update to the force about what we are solving here at the top. We are in a position to get this right, you are the one that can do it, and our Airmen demand it.

Are you really surprised that the comments on there favor the Air Force's policy? That is a blue koolaid site, hence the majority of readers drink it in huge servings. They are also more apt to leave a comment, they wouldn't want to miss a chance to kiss some ass.

imported_CLSE

08-26-2013, 09:40 PM

To answer the question about where they get the whole deal for the walk test - The Air Force used the Cooper Institute Submaximal Aerobic test. The Cooper Institute took real people, tested them and then determined what the average, maximum, minimum, etc, were and created a ranking system that placed indviduals into a percentile based on their performance.

Not sure where they came up with the formula for the heart rate, etc.

But, that's where the Air Force got the walk and run standards from.

So, to the problems with this. The CSAF has made it plainly clear that Air Force leadership have no intention of coming clean about the fact that the scoring is biased for the 30-39 age group on the run and walk and flat out inaccurate and based on false information for the waist.

The government of Japan has instituted waist circumference standards for all Japanese citizens. Japanese who have a waist circumference higher than the national standards are required to undergo medical intervention to get it down.

Take a look at the waist standards that the Japanese government uses - they are almost 6" lower for both males and females than what the Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, and the Air Force uses across the board.

This is because doctors have recognized that a single waist circumference standard cannot be applied to all races - a Japanese male would be well beyond obese with a 41" abdominal circumference. Doctors actually recognize this and have finally started to come out with standards that account for that fact.

Despite this, the Air Force still claims that race, height, etc, does not affect the accuracy of the abdominal circumference for detecting obesity.

In addition, the CSAF says that the abdominal circumference measurement is a body fat assessment / body composition - that is a flat out lie. When the test first came out, the Air Force Medical Service even acknowledged and explicitly stated that in the training slides it used to train PTLs.

As many have pointed out, the BMI is trash. It was developed to track body composition trends of populations, not individuals. It has been well and repeatedly established that the BMI is relatively accurate for people who are around a 25, but it gets less and less accurate as body weight goes up or down. It overestimates body fat at higher weights and underestimates it at lower weights.

Mariusz Pudzianowski has a 36" waist and is solid muscle, yet according to the BMI, he is morbidly obese.

It is physically impossible to determine a person's body composition / body fat percentage using only abdominal circumference or a waist + height. Anyone claiming otherwise is either completely ignorant about human anatomy and the laws of physics or is a liar.

None of this even touches on, as many have pointed out, the wide variability in taping between individuals doing the taping.

As far as the run and the walk are concerned, the CSAF didn't touch on the fact that the scoring for the 30-39 age group is not age-adjusted after a certain point.

There is not only no medical basis for this, it is a well-documented fact that aerobic capacity decreases with age and the Air Force is obviously well aware of this fact because the scoring is age adjusted for the 40 - 49 and 50 - 59 age groups as well as being age-adjusted for the push-ups and sit-ups.

The Army and Marines age-adjust either their scoring (Army) or the number of points required to pass (Marines) across the board.

The only reason to do this is to deliberately bias the score against slower runners/walkers, but it's now pretty clear Air Force leadership will never fess up to that fact, as they will never fess up to the fact that the abdominal circumference standards are flat out bogus.

I will state again that I have absolutely no issue with having a PT test or expecting people to not be digusting fat bodies. What I have an issue with is Air Force leadership blowing smoke up everybody's asses about the standards being based on science, etc, while deliberately biasing the scoring against a certain age group and pushing them out without so much as separation pay.

And if you wonder why I say it's deliberately biased, it's not difficult to see when you look at the standards, where they include age-adjustments and where they don't. Plus, I recently talked w/ a doc who was in the Air Force not long and he flat out said that the standards are designed to push people out.

I would have had more respect for the CSAF if he would have just come out and said that the standards aren't changing and admitted that they are deliberately biased to push more people out in the 30-39 age group, before they can retire.

At least then people could make an educated decision about what they plan to do, but that's exactly what they don't want - they know damn well that people would starting bailing in large numbers at around 10 years, while they're still competitive on the outside, rather than risk getting booted with nothing at 15 or 18 years.

sharkhunter

08-26-2013, 09:54 PM

Yes. Let's pull X-ray technicians from their primary AFSC and have them play "finding the hip bone" at the HAWC all day. Wonderful idea. :31:

Well...why not? All the measurements will be consistent

imported_StandardsAMust

08-27-2013, 09:57 AM

Well...why not? All the measurements will be consistent

Check this out...the best and worst ways to measure body fat:

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=56830

The BMI Test

The verdict: Free and readily available; good for assessing health risks but doesn't measure body-fat percentage. If you are short, or very muscular, results tend to be less accurate.

"It's a good starting point, a really good way to get a basic estimate of whether you are overweight or not," says Bryant. "BMI tends to correlate pretty closely with health risks associated with being overweight or obese."

"The problem is, these devices are very sensitive to hydration -- how much fluid is in your body," Bryant tells WebMD. So it's important to strictly follow the guidelines for weighing yourself -- time of day, fluid and food intake. Even your menstrual cycle affects this reading. "However, with all this factored in, the scales are an easy, at-home way to keep track of your weight and fat-loss progress."

There also are handheld versions that use this same technology. Just remember: You get what you pay for. Higher price equals greater accuracy.

Grade: C+. "Even though they may not be accurate, it may be good for tracking changes with a diet and exercise program," says McCrory. "Just keep in mind that the scales might be off by 5%, plus or minus. Follow the instructions carefully. Taking a shower beforehand really makes the reading inaccurate!"

DEXA Scanning

The verdict: Looking good.

DEXA is "an emerging technique that holds a lot of promise," Bryant tells WebMD. "It allows us to determine the amount of body fat overall, and to identify fat deposits in specific body regions. That's very important, because stores of body fat can be much more indicative of disease risk." For example, extra abdominal fat increases the risk of heart disease, cancer, and type 2 diabetes.

Primary-care doctors, physical therapists, and health clubs will soon be offering DEXA scanning to assess body fat, Bryant tells WebMD. "If your BMI says you're in the obese category and you have a strong family history of heart disease and diabetes, it might behoove you to get more precise assessment of body composition," says Bryant.

Grade: A. "It's one of the most accurate methods out there," says McCrory. "I haven't heard any news about DEXA in health clubs. But if you have the opportunity to be tested by DEXA, go for it." She warns, however, that obese people may have a hard time lying on the narrow tables used for this test

Hydrodensitometry testing, this involves getting into a tank filled with water. Based on the amount of water you displace, your body density and body fat can be calculated.

The verdict: "It's a very accurate way to measure body fat," says Bryant. But going into the water can be a problem. Some find the procedure "disconcerting."

Grade: B-. Inconvenience is a big issue here, agrees McCrory. "My guess is that underwater testing will be a 'has been' in a few years."

Bod Pod

The verdict: McCrory says she believes it may be the way of the future, though Bryant notes that it needs some refinement.

Grade: A. "It's much easier and more convenient than underwater weighing," says McCrory. "It is about as accurate and reliable as DEXA, is much cheaper, and is becoming more widely available."

The Tape Measure (around the belly button)

The verdict: This is a basic indicator of a body fat problem, says Bryant. "It's a good technique," says Kravitz.

Grade: A. Girth measurement is "accurate and reliable" for assessing your risk of chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer, says McCrory. Quite simply: The bigger the girth, the bigger the risk. "However, some new research is coming out suggesting that there is more risk than previously thought at even lower risk circumferences."

Skinfold Calipers

The verdict: Much depends on the skills of the person giving you the test. "The skinfold test can be reasonably accurate," Bryant tells WebMD. "But if the tester isn't experienced, or if they're using cheapo plastic calipers, take it with a grain of salt. It will be terribly unreliable."

Grade: D. "These are rarely done correctly," says McCrory. "The technician usually does not grab enough fat so the result is usually a big underestimate of body fat. It's also difficult to grab the fat consistently."

The verdict: "These charts have significant limitations," says Bryant. "They really aren't measuring fat-to-lean tissue. They are based on a limited sample of the population and can be misleading."

Grade: F. "These do nothing to help us understand body composition," Kravitz says.

Sergeant eNYgma

08-27-2013, 02:25 PM

Really I've no opinion on this, I figured the waist itself wasn't going anywhere anyway so didnt get all excited for it. They want us to be sticks in uniform and it'll stay that way for awhile not a news flash by any means.

I want the EPR thing to def be looked at and improved though.

imported_StandardsAMust

08-27-2013, 02:58 PM

Really I've no opinion on this, I figured the waist itself wasn't going anywhere anyway so didnt get all excited for it. They want us to be sticks in uniform and it'll stay that way for awhile not a news flash by any means.

I want the EPR thing to def be looked at and improved though.

So DSD guidance released in July is really beginning to change the landscape on AF standards. Now, TA is holding people accountable...well, more changes on the way as a result of some folks thinking they can hold off on thier CCAF and/or score less than an 80 on thier PT test to avoid DSD. Those jumping on profiles to avoid DSD are going to be in for a shock as well.

Got an update on Friday about two big topics...EPRs and Profiles. Big AF is looking at the profile system because of suspected cheating...duh!! I've been voicing this since 2010 when people figured out how to manipulate the system. Apparently, the medical AFI covering DAWG and MEB procedures are under review and bases will now be responsible to ensure units are reporting those that meet DAWG criteria based on the new updated AFI 36-2905 guidance. Basically, anyone exempted in the same component for more than one year will be reviewed or 4 exemptions in a 2-year period.

EPR and OPR forms are under revision. Looks like subjectivity will be reduced and supervisors will now have to make tough choices on how they rate their people under some new and revised metrics and guidance in an effort to reduce inflation.

Any change will be phased in most likely starting late next year. I'm curious to see how this will all unfold.

jondstewart

09-02-2013, 10:38 PM

I really think there is something in the food making us fatter than ever! No, no, not the "fact" that we're less active than ever. I really think all this GMO crap we're eating is causing it! Over 20 years ago and before, not many grown men had waist sizes larger than a 36! Now it's more than half! And many career Airmen that were middle-aged men 35 and over did NOT exercise that year in between mile and a half runs and they made theirs just fine!

Bunch

09-03-2013, 05:23 AM

I really think there is something in the food making us fatter than ever! No, no, not the "fact" that we're less active than ever. I really think all this GMO crap we're eating is causing it! Over 20 years ago and before, not many grown men had waist sizes larger than a 36! Now it's more than half! And many career Airmen that were middle-aged men 35 and over did NOT exercise that year in between mile and a half runs and they made theirs just fine!

There is a lot of factor that come into play when it comes to why our population in general is getting fatter. I blame access to resource first. Before the Walmart explosion you really didn't have the availability to go and grab food that easy and usually when you bought at the local grocery store you bought what you need it. The proliferation of fast foods would be a close second IMO.

When it comes to the Air Force I think that the main reason people have weight issues is just the nature of our jobs. The majority of us find ourselves at desk/chair jobs and those who work on an active AFSC like SF aren't usually given enough time to eat so fast foods and the like are what many of them choose to eat.

imported_StandardsAMust

09-03-2013, 07:20 AM

I really think there is something in the food making us fatter than ever! No, no, not the "fact" that we're less active than ever. I really think all this GMO crap we're eating is causing it! Over 20 years ago and before, not many grown men had waist sizes larger than a 36! Now it's more than half! And many career Airmen that were middle-aged men 35 and over did NOT exercise that year in between mile and a half runs and they made theirs just fine!

It's most likely from folks drinking lots of Red Bulls and Sodie Pop.

wxjumper

09-03-2013, 03:10 PM

I really think there is something in the food making us fatter than ever! No, no, not the "fact" that we're less active than ever. I really think all this GMO crap we're eating is causing it! Over 20 years ago and before, not many grown men had waist sizes larger than a 36! Now it's more than half! And many career Airmen that were middle-aged men 35 and over did NOT exercise that year in between mile and a half runs and they made theirs just fine!Your hypothesis is more correct then you think. There are a lot of additional sugars and sodium in our food these days then there was 20 years ago. This means the way we taste our food has changed. If you went back in time, some of the same foods you eat today would taste different.

Pullinteeth

09-03-2013, 04:02 PM

I really think there is something in the food making us fatter than ever! No, no, not the "fact" that we're less active than ever. I really think all this GMO crap we're eating is causing it! Over 20 years ago and before, not many grown men had waist sizes larger than a 36! Now it's more than half! And many career Airmen that were middle-aged men 35 and over did NOT exercise that year in between mile and a half runs and they made theirs just fine!

People were also shorter....and didn't live as long. Your point is? Being short and dying sooner is better?